Civil Courts Must Notify Custodian Evacuees Property When Dealing With Evacuee Land Disputes: J&K High Court Clarifies

Shedding light on the legislative intendment behind this prerequisite Justice Rahul Bharti cited Section 35 of the Jammu & Kashmir State Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Act, Svt. 2006 and observed,

“.. Even if a civil suit/revenue suit with respect to an evacuee property has come to be taken cognizance by or before the civil/revenue court, then the Custodian Evacuee is not to be kept uninformed because at the end of the day, the adjudication of a civil suit/revenue suit is going to effect no other property than the evacuee property of which the Custodian is a statutory caretaker and manager”.

The case involved a land dispute between Manzoor Hussain and his brothers (appellants) and Syed Mohasin Abbas and others (respondents) in Jammu. The appellants sought a permanent injunction to prevent the respondents from interfering with their possession of a 43-kanal plot of land.

However, the trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit on the grounds that the land was evacuee property, and civil courts lacked jurisdiction under the State Evacuees Act, Svt. 2006.

The appellants challenged this decision in a second appeal before the High Court. They argued that their suit for permanent injunction was a private matter unrelated to the Evacuees' Act and should be heard by a civil court.

The appellants argued that both the trial and appellate courts erred in their interpretation of the law, claiming that the suit was of a private nature and not influenced by the Evacuees' Act. They contended that their suit for a permanent prohibitory injunction did not necessitate the application of the Evacuees Act.

In contrast, the respondents maintained that the property in question was indeed evacuee property and that the civil courts were barred from entertaining the suit under Section 31 of the Evacuees' Act.

Court Observations:

Acknowledging the appellants argument, Justice Bharti observed that the suit named not only private individuals as defendants but also public officials, including the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, and the Tehsildar. In light of this, the Court noted that a decree in favor of the appellants would effectively restrict even these officials from dealing with the land.

Justice Bharti further highlighted a crucial point – the appellants themselves had described the land as evacuee property in their plaint. This, along with the inclusion of public officials as defendants, led the Court to conclude that the suit could not be considered a simple matter between private parties.

The Court also considered the relevant provision, Section 35 of the Evacuees' Act, which mandates notifying the Custodian Evacuees' Property when a civil or revenue court takes cognizance of a suit concerning evacuee land. This requirement ensures that the Custodian, who is the statutory caretaker of evacuee property, is informed about any legal proceedings affecting such land, the bench underscored.

The court found that the nature of the suit extended beyond a simple prohibitory injunction against private individuals, as it also aimed to restrict public officials from acting in their statutory capacities. This broader implication reinforced the requirement to notify the Custodian, the bench maintained.

While acknowledging that the reasoning of the lower courts might not have been entirely accurate, the High Court ultimately upheld the dismissal of the suit and emphasised that Section 31 of the Evacuees' Act bars civil courts from entertaining such suits.

However, the Court concluded by stating that the appellants still have the option to pursue their claim through the proper channels established under the Act.

Case Title: Manzoor Hussain Vs Syed Mohsin Abbas

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 125

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment